Science journalist Chris Mooney, author of must-read The Republican War on Science, has a post at Science Progress titled "Enablers: Sometimes refuting unscientific nonsense reinforces it." This is a provocative and timely post, given the recent tussles I've been having with deniers and delayers.
I've talked to Chris, and his occasional co-blogger Matthew Nisbet (who has a related post here) many times. And while we are probably 95 percent in agreement on most things climate, I don't quite buy their argument here:
So we've reached a point where we may well be wasting our energies if we continue to battle climate skeptics. Indeed, we run the risk of propping them up far more than they deserve.
For that's the other problem with constantly rebutting anti-science forces -- not only does it waste our time, but it may play right into their hands. Consider: Over at his blog, Framing Science, Matthew Nisbet makes a very strong case that the rhetorical strategy of the Heartland Institute is exceedingly similar to that of the anti-evolutionist think tank the Discovery Institute. If so, it follows that the defenders of climate science ought to be at least as leery of outright engagement with Heartland as the defenders of evolutionary science are when it comes to engaging with Discovery.
The reason is that if you actually bother to rebut the Heartlands and Discoverys of the world, you instantly enter into a discourse on their own terms. The strategic framing these groups employ to attack mainstream science heavily features the rhetoric of scientific uncertainty ...
The key issue is what Chris means by "battle climate skeptics." I tend to agree that it is pointless to debate them one-on-one, as the listening audience can hardly be expected to adjudicate scientific arguments, so it is a losing proposition, and I rarely waste my time doing it anymore. And as I've recently blogged, I think it is also a waste of time (for me) to keep rebutting long-debunked denier talking points that someone posts in the comments of this blog.
But I do a lot of radio shows, and conservatives and libertarians (most, but not all, well-meaning people) inevitably call in, repeating old and new denier talking points. The same for lectures I give. I must rebut those points clearly and succinctly, or I will convince nobody. All progressives need to have that ability, even if they don't give talks on the subject but merely argue with a non-progressive friend or relative. So I feel some obligation to rebut new denier talking points -- like the "Earth is cooling" crap.
One advantage of doing it on a blog is that one can build up an entire database of links about the problem and the solution, so I (and others) don't have to keep rebutting the same points -- you can just refer people to the relevant posts, either here or at the few other sites that do this.
That said, I am a big believer in strategic framing, which is why I use the word "delayer" more than "denier" (although I still use the term denier occasionally, in headlines for instance, since it is better known). Delayer or delayer-1000 focuses the debate on the need for action and makes clear that the goal of the deniers is to delay action. And that's why I insist people who want to engage in a debate answer the question: "If you were running national and global climate policy, what level of global CO2 concentrations would be your goal, and how would you achieve it?"
Because if we go to 1000 ppm atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, then all debate and uncertainty in the science disappears -- the planet's livability will be destroyed for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.
I do not believe the climate issue has much analogy to the evolution issue. The creationists/intelligent-designers are mainly arguing over science in the public arena primarily because they don't want evolution taught. The stakes are very low -- at best, you end up with some poorly educated kids and the country falls behind in bio-tech research that someone else will do.
The deniers/delayers are mainly arguing over science in the public arena because they don't want action on climate. The stakes, in contrast, are enormous. If they succeed in delaying action much longer, we will be condemning the next 10 billion people who walk the earth to untold misery and strife. The public (and hence the media) needs to get the facts on climate science and climate solutions much more than they need to get the facts about evolution (don't get me wrong, though -- scientists need to vigorously defend evolution).
And that means everybody needs to be educated about the science. Matt writes:
In this case, just like with evolution, sometimes the best way to respond is to not focus on the science. Instead, shift the train of thought for the public. Reaffirm the overwhelming scientific agreement from U.S. organizations such as the National Academies, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, and now even the Bush White House. But then quickly shift frames of reference, discussing the moral and religious duty to take action, the missed opportunity for economic growth and technological development if we don't act now, and the public health threat to children, elderly, and the most vulnerable in our cities from increased rates of asthma, allergies, and deaths from heat stroke.
Yes, well, that's fine. But if there's a denier or delayer or just someone who is uninformed or a member of the media present, they will inevitably grill you on the science and the latest denier talking point -- after all, anyone can see how absurd it would be for government to require an 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 if we weren't quite sure that failure to do so would have devastating consequences.
Put another way, I spent 15 years pushing the clean-tech opportunity story -- along with the co-benefits of cleaner air, lower oil imports, new hi-tech jobs, etc -- and all I can say is that nobody cares much about that stuff by itself, certainly not the media, the cognoscenti, and the powers that be in Congress. Frankly, I wouldn't care one iota about carbon dioxide reductions if I didn't understand how overwhelming the scientific case against inaction is.
Also, the deniers/delayers attack the solutions, too -- and that must be rebutted (see here and here, for instance).
Mooney writes on his blog about his article:
A great example occurred recently with the Heartland Institute's climate skeptic conference in New York. Climate skepticism is totally passe -- this event should have been completely ignored. Instead, many of my intellectual allies were screaming their heads off denouncing it, and thereby drawing greater attention to it.
No. Most of the media hardly covered this. And many of us only discussed the conference to diss the media for covering them or to re-frame their purpose.
Indeed, the other reason one must take on the deniers' nonsense is that the media continues to cover them, albeit less seriously than before (since it is obvious to just about anybody who follows this issue that they have been dead wrong and spreading disinformation for over a decade).
If anyone can be identified as a denier/delayer enabler (other than, of course, the ExxonMobils and conservative think tanks and Rush Limbaughs of the world), it is the mainstream media. That's why I do as much media criticism in my posts as denier/delayer refutation.
But Mooney and Nisbett do offer important cautionary notes to anyone who engages in this area. Always remember that the debate isn't about science minutia; it's about whether we are are prepared to act now to ensure a livable planet for future generations.
This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
Climate psychology in cartoons: clues for solving the messaging mystery
The big stories out of Tuesday’s Senate hearing on Kerry-Boxer
Obama energy speech contained few policy specifics, but shaped forward-looking narrative
Comments
View as Threaded
kenlevenson Posted 7:10 am
21 Mar 2008
Permalink
bigTom Posted 11:52 am
21 Mar 2008
Attacking them for their motives (profit/ libertarianism/ general antiscience) may well be more effective. For the most part this crowd is largely the same one involved in Idesign, and pro-tobacco. The anti-evolution stuff is more than just anti-evolution, that it as wedge, the real goal is to destroy science, which is seen as an enemy of (fundamentalist) religion.
But, I do you think you are correct, at least for those who are persuadable by good fact and logic based arguments, the anti-GW myths do need refutation. The trick is to do it in a way that doesn't reinforce the idea that the science is still in doubt. I fear that most members of the public aren't up to judging the validity of the scientific arguments, and will come off with the impression that there are two valid positions. For that reason we need to be careful to make our arguments intellectually accessable even to those without a strong science/math background. Referring them to realclimate.org won't cut it for the sciencephobes.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 12:02 pm
21 Mar 2008
Deniers
Delayers
Enablers
Skeptics
The worst pollution is mental pollution -- the sort when you label a person rather than acknowledge him as a Man.
Romm "denies" the right to question.
While attending Archbishop Molloy High School, I was invited to visit Bell Laboratories with other physics students. I was given a book about the lives of physicists. It was called The Questioners.
That's what science is...not right and wrong, but about asking bigger and greater questions.
Do you?
"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." -- Galileo
Permalink
tico89 Posted 1:06 pm
21 Mar 2008
Engaging their arguments in a scientific discussion means showing the public that you consider their arguments worth engaging.
Refusing to engage their arguments in a scientific discussion gets you labelled as a close-minded AGW-fascist (Or Communist. Or terrorist. Or whatever it is this week) who wants to force an environmentally-friendly, healthy, and morally virtuous lifestyle down the throats of good honest polluting citizens.
Pointing out links where they can get the answers to their arguments shows you don't know what you're talking about and can't think of any answers of your own.
And whatever you call them, you're lowering yourself to their level.
So, obviously, we can't win against that type of person. 'jabailo' had a good point about 'questioners', people who don't just automatically believe what the media tells them and want reasonable arguments. Those people have my respect, and I'm always willing to answer their queries and the new arguments they come up with. You can usually tell who they are--they're polite for a start, and when you suggest sites they could look up, they don't criticise you. So you had a good point, jabailo; pity you wouldn't actually qualify for that status.
As for the 'sciencephobes' mentioned by 'bigTom'--that cross-section of population never ceases to amaze me. People who confess they know little about science, refuse to read sites--even ones like RealClimate--and then pretend actually to know what they're talking about. If they're afraid of knowing anything about science, why not just take the word of people who know a thing or two?
I just wish it wasn't all a case of 'showing the public'. If only I could believe that there was no such thing as 'the public'--just, individuals who one by one will realise what they are doing and appreciate what needs to be done. But I suppose that's being stupidly idealistic.
What I cling to is that, while we can't win these arguments, hopefully we don't actually need to win them.
If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?
Permalink
sunsetbeachguy Posted 1:57 pm
21 Mar 2008
Halfway through you realize that you are muddy and the pig is enjoying it.
Sunsetbeachguy
Permalink
trock Posted 2:55 pm
21 Mar 2008
3 subjects of scientific (and other) study.
First)
Hypothesis 1) Everything revolves around the earth (geocentric.)
Hypothesis 2) Everything in solar system revolves around the sun (heliocentric)
Second)
Hypothesis 1) The 9/11/ 2001 attacks were aided by explosive charges put into the world trade center, into world trade center building 7 and a different smaller plane hit the pentagon, and explosive charges aided the pentagon damage instead of one of the hijacked airliners. Include all the other hypotheses from the `9/11 Search for Truthers.'
Hypothesis 2) 4 airliners hijacked by people from the middle east, mostly from Saudi Arabia, flew the airliners into buildings and the ground and damage unaided by explosives set by the U.S. government.
Third)
Hypothesis 1) Global warming (AGW) caused by accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Hypothesis 2) Huge mistakes and conspiracies by major scientific organizations about AGW. People who haven't studied it much and come from political views on the subject know more than people who have spent their lives in science.
Most can see where this is going.
How many people have actually seen the science of First study, Hypothesis 1) and 2.) Very few. I see the sun rise in the morning, it goes across the sky and the sun sets. The sun goes around the earth. The stars go around the earth. The moon goes around the earth, just takes more time. The planets go around the earth, just wander a little and back up once in a while, but they eventually find their way and continue on their way around the earth.
Copernicus had a hypothesis about heliocentric. Galileo had observations about Jupiter and the moons going around it, but didn't prove heliocentric. It was left to the mathematician Kepler to prove heliocentric. But how many have studied Kepler and the math on heliocentric. I haven't. But the scientists have.
Now the `9/11 Search for Truthers' are just weird. I'll leave that for later.
Now I haven't gone thru all the AGW data, charts and information about it. But other scientists have. Heliocentric and AGW are both true using the scientific method. Each I don't have direct data study, but other scientists in the peer review process have.
So having an open mind and not an empty head, I have concluded that First Study, Hypothesis 2) Heliocentric is true is closer to Third Study, Hypothesis 1) AGW is true.
Then I will say that First Study, Hypothesis 1) Geocentric, just taking things by how they look and insufficient study is like Third Study 2) Hypothesis 2) Huge mistakes and conspiracies in science on the global warming problem.
My other conclusion is that those who continue to claim that all skeptical thought has to be open minded thought and never empty headed thought I give to a third category.
That being the Second Study, Hypothesis 1) conspiracy of government in the 9/11 tragedy to be related to the Third Study, Hypothesis 2) Huge mistakes and conspiracies in sciences of global warming.
So the `9/11 Search for Truthers' I put into the same category as the skeptical AGW or I just call the skeptical AGWer's as `Climate Search for Truthers.' Or even shorter, `Climate Truthers.'
Summary,
Heliocentric solar system like AGW.
Geocentric solar system like AGW huge mistake.
`9/11 Search for Truthers' like `Climate Search for Truther.' Climate Truthers.
It's Saturday night and I was out drinking. I hope it's not all screwed up, but that's my take on things.
Permalink
trock Posted 3:16 pm
21 Mar 2008
Moon goes around earth somewhat like speed of sun. I wrote that moon was slower. I got the moon month thing mixed up with how it moved accross sky.
Permalink
trock Posted 3:23 pm
21 Mar 2008
I don't acknowledge you other than a man.
I just think that you are a mistaken man when it comes to AGW.
Permalink
trock Posted 4:02 pm
21 Mar 2008
I felt inspired, not that that always works out for me, it could all be crap. But I felt inspired, that you can't take away.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:16 am
22 Mar 2008
Call Mothers Against Drunk Typing (MADT), we need an intervention here. Hehey.
"...it is the mainstream media."
Exactly right Joseph. The wing nuts don't matter much, it's the main stream mass delusional media that has the power.
Just like repeating the mushroom cloud/Saddam 911/WMD nonsense over and over convinced 80% of america that the Iraq invasion was necessary. The power of mass delusion, repitition, is the enemy.
They are now out to convince 80% that ethanol, clean coal, and nuclear power will be enough to dull the effects (if any) of GHG global climate change. It takes a lot of paychecks to a lot of psuedo-environmental writers to do that.
Cap and trade! They parrot. These are the dangerous deluders, not the wing nuts.
Why is this essentially Barack's energy policy? Because 60% really have accepted this mass delusion. He did bow to the rest of us, he mentioned plugin hybrids once, I think?
The hardcore wing nut deniers are the same group that still have a favorable opinion of Cheney. Politically, statistically insignifigant. They will most likely sit out this election, as they hate McCain as much as they hate Barack.
But environmentalists who understand what must be done, like the small group that knew the Iraq invasion was a titanic mistake, are also a very small percentage of voters.
Unless we rally to get people like Lester Brown to coach president in waiting Obama, our point of view will be ignored, just as the wing nut position is.
In fact we have less exposure in mass media than they do. They have their own teevee and radio networks. Foxnews and dimbulb limboob radio.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
socialscientist Posted 10:07 am
22 Mar 2008
The trolls know it. You should, too.
http://frepubtra.blogspot.com
.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 10:19 am
22 Mar 2008
AGW's evil power base is about to be blown to bits by Aquaman, Roy Spencer (http://aqua.nasa.gov/about/team_spencer.php)!
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-war ...
Current computerized climate models that predict large amounts of global warming only do so after making very crude and uncertain assumptions about how the Earth's natural greenhouse effect is maintained. In the following article I will explain why I believe that modern science can not say with any level of confidence how much of our current global warmth is caused by mankind without knowing why the Earth's greenhouse effect is limited to its current value.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/node/7523
"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." -- Galileo
Permalink
human power Posted 12:50 pm
22 Mar 2008
You can tell who really understands the science and the risk-benefit issues involved here. They are the people who don't get around the county in fossil-fool powered wheelchairs, don't fly anywhere (even to "environmental" conferences), heat only to 50 F and don't electrically cool at all. They tend to do without newly manufactured items, and don't need meat or foreign-grown food to eat well.
The funny thing is, by doing right by Mother Earth, we are also able to live better for less money. Would every adult in your household really need to work for some corporation if you ditched the steel wheelchair costs, stopped buying toys and grew a bit of food? Try it, you might even find out that being physically fit and being comfortable walking about at temperatures that range from 5F to 105F feels good. Rain and snow take quite a while to do any harm (With reasonable clothing choices), sweating is not the end of the world, and it is kind of nice to know the phase of the moon without looking it up.
But really, isn't it so much easier to just buy a few compact fluorescents and a Prius and blame the whole problem on greedy corporatists and stupid people?
Permalink